Banned

Timing + early ball picking makes power much less needed.Timing made Lendl look so powerful.Early ball taking made Connors be so agressive.And such a great returner.Not because of pace but because he ate out time and the server would have no time to react.

Legend

Djokovic's backhand is certainly one of the best - but I don't think I would put his forehand in the all time top ten (there are many better - eg Federer, Lendl, Sampras etc). He is the best mover though and his being so solid and making so few mistakes means he is like a backboard to play against. In terms of ball striking Agassi is superior to Djokovic IMO, Agassi doesn't move anywhere as well as Djokovic though.

Legend

That Connors forehand is sneered at far too much, IMO. He drove straight it through with very little spin, and yet had remarkably few errors and complete disguise considering the the racket he was using. He could impart underspin, sidespin and even some top as a mix-up with sufficient control and pace to win on any surface. He had no trouble passing or lobbing and few players could break it down from the backcourt often enough for winning records. Of course Borg and Lendl are obvious exceptions. Half of his much vaunted service return game consisted of those forehand returns.

Hall of Fame

That Connors forehand is sneered at far too much, IMO. He drove straight it through with very little spin, and yet had remarkably few errors and complete disguise considering the the racket he was using. He could impart underspin, sidespin and even some top as a mix-up with sufficient control and pace to win on any surface. He had no trouble passing or lobbing and few players could break it down from the backcourt often enough for winning records. Of course Borg and Lendl are obvious exceptions. Half of his much vaunted service return game consisted of those forehand returns.

Agreed. It's been exaggerated quite a bit over time. You really had to hit a mid court, sliced, no pace ball that stayed low to draw an error. And, even then, no guarantee. His backhand was tremendous, but yes, go watch the 82 and 83 USO finals and see those forehand returns rocketing at Ivan.

Errrr....if there are people saying it was continental (never heard that), then they are.....idiots. It was nowhere near continental. It looked eastern to me, not far enough under to be semi-western, but even that would be closer than calling it continental!

Semi-Pro

Agreed. It's been exaggerated quite a bit over time. You really had to hit a mid court, sliced, no pace ball that stayed low to draw an error. And, even then, no guarantee. His backhand was tremendous, but yes, go watch the 82 and 83 USO finals and see those forehand returns rocketing at Ivan.

Heh, it is quite true. Even if one never saw him play I'd ask: is it plausible that Connors won all those titles, largely from the baseline, with a "weak" forehand? ;-)

Reminds me of the famous incident where a media pundit asked Connors about his "weak" forehand. Jimmy took offense and threateningly asked: you think my forehands weak? You want to go out right now and hit forehands with me?

Legend

Heh, it is quite true. Even if one never saw him play I'd ask: is it plausible that Connors won all those titles, largely from the baseline, with a "weak" forehand? ;-)

Reminds me of the famous incident where a media pundit asked Connors about his "weak" forehand. Jimmy took offense and threateningly asked: you think my forehands weak? You want to go out right now and hit forehands with me?

Connors on the forehead of a day I'll write a thread because ... it's the best shot I've seen between all players alltime. The best shot? The FH ??? Yes.
I'm not writing for effectiveness but technique. The reason is that it is scientifically impossible because a stroke has no effect.

Now stretch the effectiveness.

Connors had a phenomenal BH, because it was always phenomenal: from the baseline, half-court, in attack, in return, in passing, on the high balls, the low balls, longline, cross.
He had only a weak point, only one: the other side very low, in fact, suffered tremendously BH lefty Orantes and Vilas of har tru (and it is no coincidence I've lost two finals at the US Open, and not only, Orantes and the Vilas other times they beat on clay).

Connors had a FH equally phenomenal suffered tremendously because the FH down because he had an incredible grip.
It was so much in need of red clay, grass and less on much less of har tru.
But this does not disadvantage him on carpet and hc! Because that's where the ball fell short.

On carpet, and on hc, his FH, from the baseline, half-court, in attack, in return, in passing, on the high balls, even on low balls, longline, cross was almost equal to the BH.
Very often in retrun and attack it is better than the BH!
(Youtube Masters or US Open or Wembley and Philadelphia .. youtube helps to understand).

Hall of Fame

Errrr....if there are people saying it was continental (never heard that), then they are.....idiots. It was nowhere near continental. It looked eastern to me, not far enough under to be semi-western, but even that would be closer than calling it continental!

Connors best attribute was his ability to hit the ball on the rise which his mother made him learn how to do. It took time away from his opponents and since he hit very flat it must have been a nightmare for a S&V player.

I wouldn't rate his FH as especially good compared to other world class players. But it wasn't a weakness either. Connors was really a classic counter puncher. He took the opponents pace and spit it right back at them. That's why Ashe beat him with softballs in that Wimby final.